News
SpaceX CEO Elon Musk explains why Blue Origin’s Starship lawsuit makes no sense
For the first time since SpaceX competitor Blue Origin took NASA to federal court after losing a Moon lander contract to Starship and a protest over that loss, unsealed documents have finally revealed the argument Jeff Bezos’ space startup is focusing on in court.
After the details broke in new court documents filed on Wednesday, SpaceX CEO Elon Musk weighed in on Twitter to offer his take on why the arguments Blue Origin has hinged its lawsuit on make very little sense.
While one seemingly significant portion of the main complaint claiming to reveal “additional substantial errors” in SpaceX’s Starship HLS proposal was almost fully redacted, most of the opening argument is legible. In short, Blue Origin appears to have abandoned the vast majority of arguments it threw about prior to suing NASA and the US government and is now almost exclusively hinging its case on the claim that SpaceX violated NASA’s procurement process by failing to account for a specific kind of prelaunch review before every HLS-related Starship launch.
For NASA’s HLS competition, SpaceX proposed to create a custom variant of Starship capable of serving as a single-stage-to-orbit crewed Moon lander with the help of the rest of the Starship fleet – including Super Heavy boosters, cargo/tanker Starships, and a depot or storage ship. SpaceX would begin a Moon landing campaign by launching a (likely heavily modified) depot Starship into a stable Earth orbit. Anywhere from 8 to 14 Starship tanker missions – each carrying around 100-150 tons of propellant – would then gradually fill that depot ship over the course of no more than six or so months. Once filled, an HLS lander would launch to orbit, refill its tanks from the depot ship, and make its way to an eccentric lunar orbit to rendezvous with NASA’s Orion spacecraft and three Artemis astronauts.
As Blue Origin has exhaustively reminded anyone within earshot for the last five months, SpaceX’s Starship Moon lander proposal is extremely complex and NASA is taking an undeniable risk (of delays, not for astronauts) by choosing SpaceX. Nevertheless, NASA’s Kathy Lueders and a source evaluation panel made it abundantly clear in public selection statement that SpaceX’s proposal was by far the most competent, offering far a far superior management approach and technical risk no worse than Blue Origin’s far smaller, drastically less capable lander.
The bulk of Blue Origin’s argument appears to be that its National Team Lander proposal was drastically disadvantaged by the fact that SpaceX may or may not have incorrectly planned for just three ‘flight readiness reviews’ (FRRs) for each 16-launch HLS Starship mission. While heavily redacted, Blue Origin wants a judge to believe that contrary to the US Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) fair assessment that such a small issue is incredibly unlikely to have changed the competition’s outcome, it would have “been able to propose a substantially lower price” for its lander. To be clear, a flight readiness review is an admittedly important part of NASA’s safety culture, but it ultimately amounts to paperwork and doublechecks over the course of a day or two of meetings.
All else equal, the need to complete an FRR before a launch is incredibly unlikely to cause more than a few days of delays in a worst-case scenario and would have next to no cost impact. There is no reasonable way to argue that being allowed to complete some launches without an FRR would have singlehandedly allowed Blue Origin to “[engineer] and [propose] an entirely different architecture.” Nevertheless, that’s exactly what the company attempts to argue – that it would have radically and completely changed the design it spent more than half a billion dollars sketching out if it had only been able to skip a few reviews.
Curiously, Blue Origin nevertheless does make a few coherent and seemingly fact-based arguments in the document. Perhaps most notably, it claims that when NASA ultimately concluded that it didn’t have funds for even a single award (a known fact) and asked SpaceX – its first choice – to make slight contract modifications to make the financial side of things work, NASA consciously chose to waive the need for an FRR before every HLS Starship launch. Only via purported cost savings from those waived reviews, Blue Origin claims, was NASA able to afford SpaceX’s proposal – which, it’s worth noting, was more than twice as cheap as the next cheapest option (Blue Origin).
Ultimately, it thus appears that Blue Origin may have a case to make that NASA awarded SpaceX the HLS Option A contract despite a handful of errors that violated contracting rules and the HLS solicitation. Relative to just about any other possible issue, though, it’s hard not to perceive the problems Blue Origin may or may have correctly pointed out as anything more than marginal and extraordinarily unlikely to have changed the outcome in Blue’s favor had they been rectified before the award. Most importantly, even if Blue Origin’s argument is somehow received favorably and a judge orders NASA to overturn its SpaceX HLS award and reconsider all three proposals, it’s virtually inconceivable that even that best-case outcome would result in Blue Origin receiving a contract of any kind.
Elon Musk
Tesla expands US LFP battery supply with LG Energy Solution deal: report
The report was initially published by TheElec, citing industry sources.
LG Energy Solution (LGES) will manufacture lithium iron phosphate (LFP) energy storage system (ESS) batteries for Tesla at its Lansing, Michigan facility.
The report was initially published by TheElec, citing industry sources.
LG Energy Solution’s Lansing plant, formerly known as Ultium Cells 3, was previously operated as a joint venture with General Motors. LGES acquired GM’s stake in May 2025 and now fully owns the site. With a production capacity of 50 GWh per year, it is one of the company’s largest facilities in North America.
LG Energy Solution is converting part of the Lansing factory to produce LFP batteries for energy storage systems. Equipment orders for the new lines have already been placed, and mass production is reportedly expected to begin in the second half of next year.
Last July, LG Energy Solution disclosed a 5.94 trillion won battery supply agreement running from August 2027 to July 2030. While the company did not name the customer, industry sources pointed to Tesla as the buyer.
Tesla has primarily used CATL’s prismatic batteries for its Megapack systems. The move to source prismatic LFP cells from LG Energy Solution’s U.S. plant could then be seen as part of Tesla’s efforts to bolster its North American supply base for its energy storage business.
For the Lansing conversion, LG Energy Solution reportedly plans to use electrode equipment originally ordered under its Ultium Cells venture with General Motors. Suppliers reportedly include CIS and Hirano Tecseed for electrode systems, TSI for mixing equipment, CK Solution for heat exhaust systems, A-Pro for formation equipment, and Shinjin Mtech for assembly kits.
Tesla currently manufactures energy storage products at facilities in California and Shanghai, though another Megafactory that produces the Megapack is also expected to be built in Texas. As per recent reports, the Texas Megafactory recently advanced with a major property sale.
News
Tesla begins Grok AI chatbot rollout to Australia and New Zealand fleet
The update follows earlier deployments in the United States and Europe.
Tesla has rolled out its Grok AI assistant to Australia and New Zealand, embedding the conversational chatbot directly into compatible vehicles via an over-the-air update.
The system, developed by Elon Musk’s xAI, is now live on select models, giving drivers access to a voice-based assistant that goes well beyond traditional command-driven controls.
The update follows earlier deployments in the United States and Europe.
Tesla Australia confirmed Grok is available on Model S, Model 3, Model X and Model Y vehicles equipped with an AMD processor and running software version 2025.26 or later.
“Grok is coming to Teslas in Australia and New Zealand. It can answer almost any question using real-time information & also add/edit navigation destinations to become your personal guide. Phased rollout has now begun to eligible vehicles,” Tesla Australia and New Zealand wrote in a post on its official X account.
Drivers can activate Grok using the steering wheel controls once the update is installed. Access requires either a Premium Connectivity subscription or a stable Wi-Fi connection.
Unlike conventional in-car voice assistants that rely on fixed prompts, Grok is designed to respond conversationally. It can adjust navigation mid-trip, locate nearby points of interest, explain dashboard warnings, provide driving guidance and reference the owner’s manual.
Tesla noted that interactions with Grok are processed by xAI and remain anonymous to Tesla, adding that conversations are not linked to a specific driver or vehicle.
Grok has attracted attention overseas for offering multiple interaction modes. In the U.S., users can select personalities such as Assistant, Language Tutor, Therapist, Storyteller and Meditation. Additional optional modes for adult users include settings labeled Unhinged, Motivation, Argumentative, Romantic and even Sexy.
Viral clips shared online have shown Grok adopting sarcastic or playful tones that differ from more neutral digital assistants, with the AI assistant typically catching drivers off-guard with its sharp personality and wit.
News
Ford is charging for a basic EV feature on the Mustang Mach-E
When ordering a new Ford Mustang Mach-E, you’ll now be hit with an additional fee for one basic EV feature: the frunk.
Ford is charging an additional fee for a basic EV feature on its Mustang Mach-E, its most popular electric vehicle offering.
Ford has shuttered its initial Model e program, but is venturing into a more controlled and refined effort, and it is abandoning the F-150 Lightning in favor of a new pickup that is currently under design, but appears to have some favorable features.
However, ordering a new Mustang Mach-E now comes with an additional fee for one basic EV feature: the frunk.
The frunk is the front trunk, and due to the lack of a large engine in the front of an electric vehicle, OEMs are able to offer additional storage space under the hood. There’s one problem, though, and that is that companies appear to be recognizing that they can remove it for free while offering the function for a fee.
Ford is now charging $495 on the Mustang Mach-E frunk (front trunk). What are your thoughts on that? pic.twitter.com/EOzZe3z9ZQ
— Alan of TesCalendar 📆⚡️ (@TesCalendar1) February 24, 2026
Ford is charging $495 for the frunk.
Interestingly, the frunk size varies by vehicle, but the Mustang Mach-E features a 4.7 to 4.8 cubic-foot-sized frunk, which measures approximately 9 inches deep, 26 inches wide, and 14 inches high.
When the vehicle was first released, Ford marketed the frunk as the ultimate tailgating feature, showing it off as a perfect place to store and serve cold shrimp cocktail.
Ford Mach-E frunk is perfect for chowders and chicken wings, and we’re not even joking
It appears the decision to charge for what is a simple advantage of an EV is not going over well, as even Ford loyal customers say the frunk is a “basic expectation” of an EV. Without it, it seems as if fans feel the company is nickel-and-diming its customers.
It will be pretty interesting to see the Mach-E without a frunk, and while it should not be enough to turn people away from potentially buying the vehicle, it seems the decision to add an additional charge to include one will definitely annoy some customers.
Tesla expands US LFP battery supply with LG Energy Solution deal: report
Tesla begins Grok AI chatbot rollout to Australia and New Zealand fleet
